Re: URCM : Blocking is Permanent

[Peter Clinch]

Derek C wrote:

> So you have time to read all this stuff in your cushy little public
> service job. I'd better write to Mr Cameron and Mr Osbourne to suggest
> where the cuts should be made first.

A stupid ad hominem attack which misses the point that I can access
libraries outside of my work duties.
Stop with the silliness and trying to worm your way around the simple
fact that you haven't done a lot of the reading you need to in order to
get a good level of information on something you /say/ you really want
to know.

> In the UK only about 2% of journeys are made by bicycle.

But 2% of a very, very big number is still a big number.

> I am not in favour of making cycle helmets compulsory for cyclists.
> Maybe hospitals should charge, or charge more, for treating head
> injuries that might have been prevented by wearing a cycle helmet.

So should they charge for head injuries from trips and falls that would
also have been mitigated by an EN1078 lid? You're going back to
differentiating between cycling risks and other risks for no other
reason than you seem to have a habit of doing that, but you haven't put
up anything like a copper-bottomed reason for assuming cyclists clearly
warrant precautions that (a) other modalities don't and (b) haven't been
proven to make much of a difference.

> Maybe they also should do the same for motorists who don't wear seat
> belts?

Or a safety helmet, since there are head injuries caused in cars that
would be mitigated by some sort of helmet.

> Nevertheless Tim Gill still wears a cycle helmets as a sensible
> precaution, and requires that his daughter does so also.

He does, but that doesn't mean he thinks they're saving lives. In fact
his clear conclusion was AFAHCT from the available evidence they didn't.

It's perfectly reasonable to wear a lid for no other reason you want to,
and/or the "what if?" factor Gill also specifically mentions. The
latter is, I think, FUD and rationalisation but even if that is all it
is wouldn't be a reason one /should/ stop wearing. If it makes you
happier, go ahead.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Derek C]

On Jun 11, 12:52*pm, Peter Clinch > wrote:
> Derek C wrote:

> > So you have time to read all this stuff in your cushy little public
> > service job. I'd better write to Mr Cameron and Mr Osbourne to suggest
> > where the cuts should be made first.
>
> A stupid ad hominem attack which misses the point that I can access
> libraries outside of my work duties.

So you are a sad git as well then!

Derek C

[Peter Clinch]

Derek C wrote:
> On Jun 11, 12:52 pm, Peter Clinch > wrote:
>> Derek C wrote:
>
>>> So you have time to read all this stuff in your cushy little public
>>> service job. I'd better write to Mr Cameron and Mr Osbourne to suggest
>>> where the cuts should be made first.
>> A stupid ad hominem attack which misses the point that I can access
>> libraries outside of my work duties.
>
> So you are a sad git as well then!

I'm one of the people that really want to know.

So you can face the fact that rather a lot of dull, sad literature
searching is inevitable, and with it a degree of sad gittery, if *you*
really /do/ want to know too.

Or perhaps you don't? If so, please at least have the basic honesty to
admit it.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Derek C]

On Jun 11, 1:09*pm, Peter Clinch > wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
> > On Jun 11, 12:52 pm, Peter Clinch > wrote:
> >> Derek C wrote:
>
> >>> So you have time to read all this stuff in your cushy little public
> >>> service job. I'd better write to Mr Cameron and Mr Osbourne to suggest
> >>> where the cuts should be made first.
> >> A stupid ad hominem attack which misses the point that I can access
> >> libraries outside of my work duties.
>
> > So you are a sad git as well then!
>
> I'm one of the people that really want to know.
>
> So you can face the fact that rather a lot of dull, sad literature
> searching is inevitable, and with it a degree of sad gittery, if *you*
> really /do/ want to know too.
>
> Or perhaps you don't? *If so, please at least have the basic honesty to
> admit it.
>
> Pete.
> --
I am glad to hear that you are a sceptic both for and against wearing
helmets. Perhaps we can now stop trading insults and discuss the real
issues and how they can be resolving. Probably not by trading ancient
and out of date research papers and probably inaccurate or biased
statistics.

Derek C

[Peter Clinch]

Derek C wrote:

> I am glad to hear that you are a sceptic both for and against wearing
> helmets. Perhaps we can now stop trading insults and discuss the real
> issues and how they can be resolving. Probably not by trading ancient
> and out of date research papers and probably inaccurate or biased
> statistics.

So read the up to date ones[1] and you can judge for yourself how good
the stats are[2]. Of course, you won't find the actual nitty gritty in
the abstracts. You really can't get out of a trip to the library if you
want the most complete and up to date information, it simply isn't
available on FOC internet no matter how you try and get around the fact.

The real issue is you need to demonstrate the effectiveness of helmets
far better than you've managed so far. As a trained scientist you will
appreciate that scepticism should be the default start position and
until you have really good levels of proof otherwise that's where you
should stay.

You don't require /any/ level of proof wear a lid. All you need to
reasonably do that is to want to. Wearing and proof of effectiveness
can be quite separate issues.

Pete.

[1] there seems to be an implication that some people, possibly
including me, are disingenuously concentrating on past-sell-by-date
papers to push an agenda. I hope I'm imagining that.

[2] up to one's ability in stats. I freely admit the full depth of the
stats methods used in, say, Hewson's 2005 TIP piece are beyond me to
properly critique, but I've yet to see anyone else drill any obvious
holes in them and nobody's stopping anyone doing a public pull-apart
like the one BHRF do to TRT '89.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[JMS]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 12:52:25 +0100, Peter Clinch
> wrote:

>Derek C wrote:
>
>> So you have time to read all this stuff in your cushy little public
>> service job. I'd better write to Mr Cameron and Mr Osbourne to suggest
>> where the cuts should be made first.
>
>A stupid ad hominem attack which misses the point that I can access
>libraries outside of my work duties.
>Stop with the silliness and trying to worm your way around the simple
>fact that you haven't done a lot of the reading you need to in order to
>get a good level of information on something you /say/ you really want
>to know.
>
>> In the UK only about 2% of journeys are made by bicycle.
>
>But 2% of a very, very big number is still a big number.
>
>> I am not in favour of making cycle helmets compulsory for cyclists.
>> Maybe hospitals should charge, or charge more, for treating head
>> injuries that might have been prevented by wearing a cycle helmet.
>
>So should they charge for head injuries from trips and falls that would
>also have been mitigated by an EN1078 lid?


You are a fool Clinch.

Consider how many man miles are walked every day about the home, at
work, out shopping, as a means of travel - and consider how many
people fall over and bang their head. You may if you wish include the
actions of getting in to and out of showers and walking up and down
stairs if you wish.


Then consider how many man miles are cycled every day in the UK and
how many people fall or are knocked off their bike and bang their
head.

You may also of course factor in the speed of the different modes of
movement somehow if you wish.

You may then compare the results.

Feel free to do some back of the envelope calculations and report back
here.

You are a fool Clinch.


--
2008 DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 541 Pedestrians 382
All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3814 Pedestrians : 1666
(Pedal cyclist casualties up 9% - pedestrians up 2%: Cycling is becoming more dangerous each year when compared to walking as a means of transport)

[Wm...]

Fri, 11 Jun 2010 05:45:14
>
uk.rec.cycling Derek C >

>I am glad to hear that you are a sceptic both for and against wearing
>helmets. Perhaps we can now stop trading insults and discuss the real
>issues and how they can be resolving.

Can we start with acceptable grammar first.

> Probably not by trading ancient
>and out of date research papers and probably inaccurate or biased
>statistics.

You aren't a good person to start with Derek.

--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2010, Wm... > wrote:
> Fri, 11 Jun 2010 05:45:14
> >
> uk.rec.cycling Derek C >
>
> >I am glad to hear that you are a sceptic both for and against wearing
> >helmets. Perhaps we can now stop trading insults and discuss the real
> >issues and how they can be resolving.
>
> Can we start with acceptable grammar first.

Careful, Derek's grammar is always exemplary. He's told us this, and
I think he believes that it proves he's much more clever than everyone
else.

regards, Ian SMith

--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|